meimmi
03-09 04:52 PM
Hi! I am planning to apply EAD on my own as I could no longer afford to pay my expensive lawyer, but there I am not sure how to answer question 13 in the form which says, "Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS? Since I was and still am on H1, should I answer yes? Please help. Thanks.
You can e-file(online) for EAD and AP. I applied online and received EAD within 45 days. I had to go to ASC for fingerprinting again though. The answer to that question is No if you are applying for EAD for the first time.
You can e-file(online) for EAD and AP. I applied online and received EAD within 45 days. I had to go to ASC for fingerprinting again though. The answer to that question is No if you are applying for EAD for the first time.
wallpaper This is Justin Bieber My World
vandanaverdia
09-11 07:08 PM
"All men dream but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence
Don't we all dream of getting a GC???
What is stopping you from to DC???
Come & join hands & lets be heard!!!!
Go IV!!!
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence
Don't we all dream of getting a GC???
What is stopping you from to DC???
Come & join hands & lets be heard!!!!
Go IV!!!
varshadas
12-14 08:20 PM
Except for myself and Rajeev, no one joined the conference call tonight. C'mmon guys, we need some action here. We all ought to participate in these calls. Writing emails, coming and posting I am in is not going to help. We have to take actions here. I will set up a conference call on another day next week and please make sure you all attend.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thanks,
Varsha
2011 Justin Bieber My World Hong
FinalGC
11-22 12:45 PM
Yes you can use the old priority date. However, this is only possible if you have a copy of the old approved LC and 140.....
Clarification PD is based on the date of filing of the Labor and NOT 140.....
Clarification PD is based on the date of filing of the Labor and NOT 140.....
more...
lahiribaba
03-10 11:44 AM
You are partly right, but the problem does not end there. Lot of it has to do with the disorderly way the applications were/are being picked up. All the old applications were pushed to BECs and newer perm applications were picked up for processing. The dates were abruptly moved forward which allowed USCIS to approve newer 485 applications before the dates were pushed back. I am a victim of both these cases� Also, there has been a lot of wastage of visa numbers. If none of these happened I am sure the EB3 dates would have move forward without getting stagnated in 2001.
well you got to re plumb once in a while dont you?
the water and drainage system that worked 100 years ago does not work now ... or does it?
well you got to re plumb once in a while dont you?
the water and drainage system that worked 100 years ago does not work now ... or does it?
ak27
11-29 09:36 AM
Good Morning Everyone,
Let us setup a time and talk about meeting Law Makers. I can be reached at ajay1857@gmail.com
My no is 732-910-5926.. Please get as many friend you can get signed up for our chapter. We have very few signed up so far. I would think that we have thousands of people like us in this boat.
Thank you
Let us setup a time and talk about meeting Law Makers. I can be reached at ajay1857@gmail.com
My no is 732-910-5926.. Please get as many friend you can get signed up for our chapter. We have very few signed up so far. I would think that we have thousands of people like us in this boat.
Thank you
more...
Sammo
02-13 11:08 AM
Theme::: Subway (as in underground train station)
No, just subway, see signifiers entry
No, just subway, see signifiers entry
2010 BIEBER MY WORLD
shankar_thanu
04-04 02:53 PM
This bill would affect all of us if they apply these same rules when we try to exend or transfer out existing H1s. Does it(the bill) say anything about that?
more...
vbkris77
04-10 12:28 PM
What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
hair justin bieber my world tour uk
rajuseattle
07-14 08:23 PM
ajthakur,
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
dont worry about LUD on 07/13, that was a generic update.
My wife's approved I-539 (H-4) from 2005 received LUD on 07/13, so that's nothing to do with your current RFE situation.
I think you are scared of your past employer or you are worrying too much, god knows what he has asked you to do which you dont want to mention on this forum, but if he has threatened you or if he is doing some illegal activities you have the protection under AC-21 for reporting such employers to USCIS and DoL. Please read the USCIS (Neufield) Memo published in May 2008.
Please let us know whats going on with your ex-employer, if he is trying to get some money from you or abusing you, you can very well report him to DoL and you will be fine under the new AC-21 memo which protects such employees who are whistle blowers and you are fully protected under US laws.
Lot of the times desi blood suckers abuse their employees and this is the reason USCIS came up with whistle blower protection under AC-21. your competent attorney can use this special provision and argue with USCIS why you were forced to change employment after filing your I-485 back in July 2007 and you switch the job under AC-21 provisions in August 2007.
dont worry too much, try preparing your AC-21 letter and Employment verification letter to answer the RFE.
more...
akilhere
10-14 10:09 AM
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
hot justin bieber my world tour
godspeed
06-14 11:41 AM
Senator Saxby Chambliss has voted against the original Senate version of H.R. 4213
more...
house justin bieber my world
kosu
08-15 03:57 PM
September is out.. I cannot beleive what i am seeing..
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
tattoo hair Justin Bieber#39;s My
gauravster
11-12 04:58 PM
WRONG.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
If spillover happens, it will go to EB2 India sure. But getting the visas used is better than having them wasted. Also, though remote, everyone in EB3 does have a remote chance that at sometime, they might be ported to EB2. For example, those who have EAD, but working with a different employer now (after getting EAD) can ask for the employer to file a new application and be eligible for EB2. Some in same company may also be able to apply for porting.
There is no problem in having multiple fronts of attack to the problem.
YOU are an EB2 India guy for sure and your PD is close.
If spillover happens, all visas will get used up by EB2 India only. EB3 India gets nothing. There are way too many Indians in the system. Even if something is left from EB2 India, EB3 ROW will get breadcrums.
EB3 India gets nothing. So stop giving wrong logic. I will oppose IV helping EB2 guys with close priority dates and not caring about everyone else.
If spillover happens, it will go to EB2 India sure. But getting the visas used is better than having them wasted. Also, though remote, everyone in EB3 does have a remote chance that at sometime, they might be ported to EB2. For example, those who have EAD, but working with a different employer now (after getting EAD) can ask for the employer to file a new application and be eligible for EB2. Some in same company may also be able to apply for porting.
There is no problem in having multiple fronts of attack to the problem.
more...
pictures 2010 2 Justin Bieber My World
needhelp!
11-14 01:26 PM
Couple of days back I got the receipt. I'll post the number soon.
dresses Justin Bieber#39;s My World
anurakt
01-17 03:54 PM
THIS IS THE BEST INVESTMENT OF YOUR LIFE, PUT 20$ / MONTH AND SEE IF IT MAKES YOUR LIFE BETTER !! GUYS JUST THINK OF THE LIFE U MAY GET ONCE YOU GET GC.... ALL SAID , DO YOU THINK I AM A FOOL CONTRBUTING SO MUCH MONEY FOR FUN.... ALL THOSE WHO THINK THAT IF ANY FRAUD EXIST , LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING , BY THE END OF THE YEAR I WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED AROUND $2700 TO IV AND I SWEAR TO GOD IF I FIND THAT IV IS NOT A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION , I WILL SUE IV..... SO GET UP GUYS AND THINK THINK THINK.... THIS IS THE LAST YEAR FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN OR MY PREDICTION IS THAT IV WON'T EXISTS .... SO JUST DO IT
more...
makeup makeup justin bieber my world
rimzhim
04-04 04:04 PM
[From here (http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/).
Enacting legislation to facilitate the admission of foreign professionals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and managerial fields as legal permanent residents.
[/LIST]
great to hear that!
also johnifax98: if middlepersons are exploiting the system, it will help to eliminate their role. i agree that is also abuse.
Enacting legislation to facilitate the admission of foreign professionals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and managerial fields as legal permanent residents.
[/LIST]
great to hear that!
also johnifax98: if middlepersons are exploiting the system, it will help to eliminate their role. i agree that is also abuse.
girlfriend Justin-ieber-my-world-
thecipher5
10-13 11:21 AM
feedfront, the receipt date on my I-485 receipt notice is October 5, 2007.
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Do you have attorney? It will be better if he/she write letter for status of the case. I had RFE in last year (around summer'09). My PD was current since Aug, but no change in the status or specific response (tried congressman, senator, SR). But, I got new RFE (medical report required) when my attorney contacted them. I don't know what triggered it, but my attorney contacted USCIS last (after I did not get any specific info from other sources).
You can write to USCIS director. Someone here in this forum wrote to director, when he did not get any progress on his SR.
What's your receipt date? I heard that they are using receipt date. I know couple of people (including myself) whose application was picked (or generated RFE) matched the pattern of receipt date not PD.
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Do you have attorney? It will be better if he/she write letter for status of the case. I had RFE in last year (around summer'09). My PD was current since Aug, but no change in the status or specific response (tried congressman, senator, SR). But, I got new RFE (medical report required) when my attorney contacted them. I don't know what triggered it, but my attorney contacted USCIS last (after I did not get any specific info from other sources).
You can write to USCIS director. Someone here in this forum wrote to director, when he did not get any progress on his SR.
What's your receipt date? I heard that they are using receipt date. I know couple of people (including myself) whose application was picked (or generated RFE) matched the pattern of receipt date not PD.
hairstyles Justin Bieber My World Tour
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
p_kumar
02-20 03:16 PM
Do you belive this guy?. His name is Ron Gotcher. All he will say is GOTCHA!!!!:D
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
BharatPremi
10-25 04:41 PM
Interesting thing (not in a good way) to note is most EB3 India (even whose priority dates are as back as 2003-2002) have filed in June/July.
Reason: All of us(between 2002-4) were rotting in BEC for years...BEC just
vomited us out between Jan 2007 to September 07.
Reason: All of us(between 2002-4) were rotting in BEC for years...BEC just
vomited us out between Jan 2007 to September 07.